Bad News Thread

Why?

There are people who do that for you. You and hound just refuse to believe them.

Though I am amused by his claim that an econ major and an MBA gives him the stats chops to argue biological science of any kind.

Kind of like me saying that, because the training wheels are off my bike, therefore I can drive a semi truck. Not really the same level....

Because they haven’t been exactly honest to date and have been shown repeatedly (as with the schools) to put agenda before the actual math and science. But as I said if there is an effect it’s been negligible so you’d had to do that to actually quantify it. It’s not clear and obvious
 
You always throw up something to excuse your priors. Because (for the same reason the 20% thresholds didn’t work) we know (from among others that Fauci guy but also from things like the various outbreaks on boats) that the herd immunity threshold is actually quite high (though I speculate it might be lower for any particular wave). Besides you were the one speculating that it would be stupid to gather for the super bowl and blow our progress...you didn’t qualify “in places like NorCal though I suppose places like Los Angeles Florida Texas and the dakotas with high immunity should be ok to bar indoor dine or house party”
Oh, I still think it was stupid for anyone to hold super bowl parties this year.

You don't need a 30% increase in cases for it to be a dumb idea.

Herd immunity is context dependent, by the way. You can use a cruise ship to establish a number, but that only tells you the herd immunity level for that behavior in that environment. Put the same people back in their homes, and the number changes entirely.
 
Oh, I still think it was stupid for anyone to hold super bowl parties this year.

You don't need a 30% increase in cases for it to be a dumb idea.

Herd immunity is context dependent, by the way. You can use a cruise ship to establish a number, but that only tells you the herd immunity level for that behavior in that environment. Put the same people back in their homes, and the number changes entirely.
I’d agree with all this. But you were the one who was concerned numbers would go up if they were stupid. Their stupidity has not substantially impacted the numbers
 
Because they haven’t been exactly honest to date and have been shown repeatedly (as with the schools) to put agenda before the actual math and science. But as I said if there is an effect it’s been negligible so you’d had to do that to actually quantify it. It’s not clear and obvious
You're looking for effects that swing transmissibility by 40%.

I'm looking for anything that causes a 2% shift.

It makes a difference.
 
I’d agree with all this. But you were the one who was concerned numbers would go up if they were stupid. Their stupidity has not substantially impacted the numbers
How stupid were they? Do we know? Or do we just assume that news anecdotes must be representative? Seems a bad assumption.

Could look at ratings or beer sales, I suppose. Not sure how you tell whether they watched at home or at a friend's house, though.
 
You're looking for effects that swing transmissibility by 40%.

I'm looking for anything that causes a 2% shift.

It makes a difference.
By definition it makes a difference. The question though is how substantial is the difference (the benefit) and how does it compare to the cost. We agree on the former...you have repeatedly refused to look at the latter. And the rhetoric and advice of the health experts have made it seem much more than a 2% impact (and while Christmas certainly reached that level...I doubt the Super Bowl did)
 
How stupid were they? Do we know? Or do we just assume that news anecdotes must be representative? Seems a bad assumption.

Could look at ratings or beer sales, I suppose. Not sure how you tell whether they watched at home or at a friend's house, though.

True but if the hysterics in the news were to be believed as well as the pictures broadcast, pretty stupid (though I grant you the news media is often liars). If folks are well behaved anyway then (as Sweden believes) what’s to point of banning bars restaurants and gathering....if most behave smart they’ll come to the conclusion without closures. You can’t have it both ways: we need to mandate because people are stupid or they are not and people can make their own decisions
 
By definition it makes a difference. The question though is how substantial is the difference (the benefit) and how does it compare to the cost. We agree on the former...you have repeatedly refused to look at the latter. And the rhetoric and advice of the health experts have made it seem much more than a 2% impact (and while Christmas certainly reached that level...I doubt the Super Bowl did)
That's because you see a 40% drop as a 40% drop in the total.

I see a 2% drop in transmissibility as one tenth of a solution.

You're looking at totals and I'm looking at growth rates.
 
That's because you see a 40% drop as a 40% drop in the total.

I see a 2% drop in transmissibility as one tenth of a solution.

You're looking at totals and I'm looking at growth rates.

Then it’s not 2% given there’s been virtually no impact on the curve whatsoever.
 
It's a one shot. One shot 2% is diddly squat. It's the ongoing 2% that matters.
Goal post moved again. Again you were the one concerned about that people acting stupid—-> set backs. I know compound effects are powerful but even on a recurring compound effect basis it’s no where in the vicinity of seasonality, farrs, housing density and immunity. And what’s worse comes at enormous costs.
 
I guess you didn't get the joke about your criticizing people with agendas.
Yeah I got it. As I said much better than your usual schtick! And coming from someone with his own agenda it’s even more funny! Way to go Magoo, my dear old bean!

Ps you sort of ruined it by explaining it to the plebs.
 
Back
Top